Are you sure you want to delete this post?
New York Times: Amid Parliament’s Brexit Rebellion, a Tectonic Shift in How Britain Is Governed
"The Brexit fiasco seems to be forcing a tectonic shift in how Britain is governed, as Parliament flexes its muscles and the prime minister struggles to force through her agenda — a dynamic more characteristic of America’s gridlock-prone system.
"Behind this change lie political shifts that have made it harder for British governments to secure convincing majorities in Parliament, with inconclusive elections and minority governments starting to become the norm...You’ve got a breakdown of the way traditional political parties have worked,” said Bronwen Maddox, the director of the Institute of Government, a London-based policy group. “M.P.s are supposed to follow what their party leader says. Now, they are pulled by the way their constituents will have voted, and by their own beliefs.”
Well, yes there are parallels with the USA, but still Republicans are fiercely loyal to their tribe, and Democrats less so. Speaker Pelosi, however, is adding another dimension as she gets the betterment of Trump.
As I understand it, however, much of Europe has similar forms of Parliamentary governments to Britain with a multitude of parties that have to form coalition governments after every election. Is that considered an advantage or disadvantage compared to America's largely two party system and fixed election dates?
I don't see that either system is superior. The government is only as good as the people who choose participate in it by both running for office and voting. A democracy requires participation of an educated electorate to survive, and that is true in America, The United Kingdom and the Netherlands.